linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH, RFC] random: introduce getrandom(2) system call

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAComcpPO1hrcfpe+Pmy2jtVE=dVU1S+=ZsVotuBzZEVOivwwvA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 Jul 2014 13:56:03 -0600
From:	Bob Beck <beck@...nbsd.org>
To:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Bob Beck <beck@...nbsd.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-abi <linux-abi@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-crypto <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] random: introduce getrandom(2) system call

Hey Ted, one more nit. Yes, I have a bicycle too..

I see here we add a flag to make it block - whereas it seems most
other system calls that can block the flag is
added to make it not block (I.E. O_NONBLOCK, etc. etc.)  Would it make
more sense to invert this so it was more
like the typical convention in other system calls?


On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:05:01AM -0600, Bob Beck wrote:
>> Hi Ted, yeah I understand the reasoning, it would be good if there was
>> a way to influence the various libc people to
>> ensure they manage to provide a getentropy().
>
> I don't anticipate that to be a problem.  And before they do, and/or
> if you are dealing with a system where the kernel has been upgraded,
> but not libc, you have your choice of either sticking with the
> binary_sysctl approach, or calling getrandom directly using the
> syscall method; and in that case, whether we use getrandom() or
> provide an exact getentropy() replacement system call isn't that much
> difference, since you'd have to have Linux-specific workaround code
> anyway....
>
>                                 - Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/